Perspectives

PERSPECTIVES

navigate them successfully. Another difficult SCIENCE AND SOCIETY area involves the discovery of biological mechanisms that do not directly identify new drugs or therapies, but make such later identification Patenting neuroscience: possible. Recent case law has addressed and refined challenges and opportunities in issues in several of these areas, and provides much of the impetus for the present review. an interdisciplinary field Throughout this review, United States and European approaches will be compared and contrasted. However, before delving into Edward R. Ergenzinger Jr, Michelle L. Cunningham, Philip M. Webber the nuances of these topics, it is necessary to and W. Murray Spruill provide an overview of the requirements that must fulfilled to obtain a patent.

The study of the nervous system draws from 1970, to more than 34,000 today (FIG. 1).This Patent primer many disciplines, including biology, chemistry, increase in the number of scientists associat- Patents are territorial rights: to obtain protec- medicine, psychology and engineering. A ing themselves with the field of neuroscience tion for an invention in a particular country consequence of this interdisciplinary has, not surprisingly, been coupled with the inventor must be granted a patent for that approach is that discoveries in one discipline an explosion in neuroscience research and invention by the patent office of that country. can inform and supplement other disciplines, publications. Almost all countries in the world now have and certain intellectual property issues might Despite the dramatic growth of the field, patent systems, and there are also some be encountered more frequently. For some commentators have raised the concern regional patent systems, such as the European example, if a new neurological indication is that neuroscience research, especially from patent system, which is discussed below. discovered for a known drug, can this new academic institutions, is not well represented Although the general principles are the use be patented? And what about the in patents or marketed inventions1.This same, the rules of these patent systems are not discovery of biological mechanisms that do might be partly because of difficulties in com- identical2. not directly identify new drugs or therapies, piling data on patents that are classified by but make subsequent identification possible? research field, particularly where inventions Patentability in the United States. There are Here, we will explore the extent to which can be categorized into more than one disci- several types of patent that can be obtained in these discoveries are patentable. pline. It might also be due to the fact that the United States. However, the type that is of the legal requirements for patentability might most interest for the present review is a utility Thirty years ago, neuroscience was just starting prevent some findings from being captured in patent. To obtain a utility patent in the United to be recognized as a separate field. Scientists patent applications. These include fields that States, the inventor(s) must submit an studying aspects of the nervous system benefit particularly from an interdisciplinary application to the United States Patent and through traditional disciplines, such as approach, such as research on the basic mech- Trademark Office (USPTO) (BOXES 1, 2) anatomy, physiology, behaviour and develop- anisms that underlie nervous system function and demonstrate that the invention meets the ment, began to appreciate the value of coming and anatomy. statutory requirements for patentability. The together in a collaborative field of study, where One of the results of an interdisciplinary most important requirements are: utility, the unifying factor was not the approach, approach is that discoveries in one discipline novelty, non-obviousness, written description but the organ system. Such an interdisciplinary can inform and supplement others. In addi- and enablement 3. approach held the promise that great strides tion, certain intellectual property issues might Although there are many aspects to the could be made if a problem was approached be encountered more frequently. For example, statutory requirements described above, from many different directions. although methods of using a known drug in the general issues associated with each are as The great potential that was predicted has the context of a newly discovered neurological follows. The requirement of utility means now been realized, and is reaffirmed every day. indication might be patentable, there are par- that an invention must perform some func- The Society for Neuroscience has grown from ticular obstacles of which inventors and their tion that is beneficial to society. Novelty and about 500 members when it was founded in patent counsel need to be aware if they are to non-obviousness deal with comparisons of

35,000 prior art is the date of invention. All other countries use a ‘first to file’ system, in which 30,000 patents are compared with prior art from the filing date of the patent application. The sec- 25,000 ond difference surrounds the procedure for dealing with public disclosures. Although most 20,000 other countries will not allow a patent if there has been any public disclosure of the invention,

15,000 the United States allows inventors a one-year period to file a patent application after publish- Number of members 10,000 ing, placing on sale or publicly using the invention. The main differences between the United States and European patent systems are sum- 5,000 marized in TABLE 1.

0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 New uses for known compounds Year The word ‘new’ generally conjures up images of a device or machine that, in whole or in Figure 1 | Society for Neuroscience: growth in membership 1980–2003. Data from The Society for Neuroscience and REFS 18,19. part, did not exist before. Although these things are certainly new, this characterization fails to take into account more incremental the invention to what has come before. countries is usually obtained through the EPO advances that take existing machines and Specifically, novelty requires that an invention (and not through the patent offices of the modify them in such a way that their function cannot be identical to a previous invention or individual member states). However, there is significantly enhanced. The identification of disclosure, and non-obviousness requires that is currently no centralized procedure for a new neurological indication for a known it cannot be so similar to a previous invention enforcing rights of European patents against compound is akin to this kind of incremental or disclosure that it would have been obvious infringement; enforcement of granted Euro- advance, and is recognized as patentable by to those in that discipline to create it. Finally, pean patents is carried out on a country-by- the USPTO and EPO. That is, however, if the the requirements of written description and country basis through the patent offices and prior art allows, and if the application is enablement pertain to how the invention is courts of the individual member countries. drafted with special rules in mind. presented in the patent application. Written The requirements for patentability at the description requires the invention to be EPO are similar to those of the USPTO. The Issues in the United States. Although the dis- described in a manner sufficient to convince EPC provides patent protection for inven- covery of a new use for a known compound others in the discipline that the inventor was tions that are susceptible of industrial applica- will not confer patent protection to the com- actually in possession of the claimed invention, that are new, and that involve an inventive pound itself, a new use for an old product is tion, whereas enablement requires that the step. The stipulation that the invention must be patentable in the United States. In an early patent application describes the invention new requires that the invention must not have case dating back to the late 1940s, a claim was in sufficient detail to allow others with skill in been made available to the public by any allowed for a method that was based on the the discipline to make or use the invention. means before the filing date of the patent appli- new discovery that the chemical compound cation. The EPC also imposes a requirement dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was Europe in comparison with the United States. that patented inventions contain an ‘inventive useful for killing insects4.Thepatentee had In Europe, patent protection for new inven- step’, which is similar to the non-obvious not identified DDT, or even discovered how tions can be obtained either from the patent requirement of the USPTO. Although to dissolve it in a solvent, but they received a offices of the individual European countries European inventions must also be susceptible patent containing a claim for a “Method of (which provide patent protection for those of industrial application, this is generally not killing insects which comprises dissolving the countries alone) or through the European an important hurdle in Europe. In contrast to chemical compound [DDT] … in a solvent Patent Office (EPO). The EPO was established the United States, several areas are excluded liquid and spraying the liquid so as to bring in 1973 under the European Patent Convention from patentability in Europe, such as methods [DDT] into contact with the insects.” (EPC) to provide a centralized procedure for of surgical or therapeutic treatment of humans Although DDT was not new, and the step of granting patents that cover one or more of the or animals, and inventions that are deemed to dissolving it was not new, the claim was member countries of the EPC. At present, 28 be immoral or unethical. granted on the basis of the new use. European countries are members of the EPC. In terms of patentability, there are two key The DDT example above demonstrates Consequently, by filing a single patent applica- ways that the United States differs from other that new uses for known compounds are tion at the EPO in one of the three official countries, including the group of countries generally patentable, but a potential problem languages of the EPC (English, French and that make up the EPO, and these relate to how for patent seekers lies in determining whether German), it is possible to obtain patent protec- patent applications are compared with the state a use is actually new. An obvious example is tion in some or all of the 28 EPC member of the art (also known as ‘prior art’). The first where a research paper describing the use countries. The EPO, therefore, provides an difference lies in the relevant date of compari- is published before the inventor’s own dis- economical route for obtaining patent protec- son with the prior art. The United States uses a covery.Such a ‘discovered’ use is not really tion in many European countries, and, for ‘first to invent’ system, meaning that the rele- new. But what if a previously known use of a this reason, patent protection in European vant date for comparing the invention with the compound actually encompassed the new use;

Box 1 | United States patent application process X disorder by administering Y’. However, where the compound has been used in other A registered patent attorney/agent or an inventor acting pro se Filing of patent application therapeutic indications, it is sometimes useful files a utility patent application with the United States Patent to add a patient selection limitation to the and Trademark Office (USPTO). claim to highlight the patient pool of interest A USPTO examiner with technical training in the field of the and make a further distinction from the prior Examination invention conducts a prior art search and determines whether art. Such a claim would take the following the application satisfies the legal requirements for patentability. form: ‘a method of treating X disorder by administering Y to a patient in need thereof’. The examiner issues an ‘office action’,identifying the grounds for Patent prosecution So, carefully crafted claim language is impor- rejection. The applicant or their representative responds by tant when it comes to overcoming obstacles amending the claims and/or submitting arguments to overcome to patentability for new uses of known the examiner’s rejections. The examiner reviews the response and compounds in the United States. either allows the claims or issues another office action. This ‘back- and-forth’ with the USPTO continues until the examiner issues a ‘notice of allowance’ or the applicant abandons the application. Medical use claims in the EPO. As mentioned If necessary, the examiner’s decision can be appealed to the Board above, the EPO does not allow claims to meth- of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and then to a federal court. ods for the therapeutic treatment of humans or animals. However, the EPO does allow two Issuance of the patent confers on the applicant the right to Patent issued forms of claim for uses of known compounds. exclude others from making, using or selling the claimed In situations where a compound is known, but invention for a term of 20 years from the date the application not for any medical use, a claim of the form was filed. ‘compound X for use as a medicament’ (a ‘first Patent rights are maintained by the payment of maintenance medical use’ claim) is allowed. Maintenance fees fees at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years from the issue date. The second situation is when a compound and at least one medical use of that compound are known and a new use is discovered. for example, where a drug for treating hyper- anticipated claims for a method of using The EPO tackled this problem in the landmark tension was also showing beneficial effects fluoxetine hydrochloride to block serotonin case involoving the drug company Eisai Inc. (recognized or not) for delaying the onset of (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT) uptake8.The in 1985 (REF. 9).The Eisai case established Alzheimer’s disease? This is where a doctrine court had been presented with sufficient that although a claim to a method of use is known as inherent anticipation comes in. evidence to demonstrate that the administra- unpatentable, the use of a product for the Under the doctrine of inherent anticip- tion of fluoxetine hydrochloride to treat manufacture of a medicament for a specified ation, a prior art reference that does not anxiety would inherently block 5-HT uptake, new and inventive medical use is patentable expressly describe a new use for a compound and that this would be recognized at that time (for more on this type of claim, see the section can still be used to demonstrate that the new by someone that was skilled in that field. ‘Reach-through claims in the EPO’ below). use is not novel. This can occur if there is Another issue that potential patentees need This decision became the precedent for second outside evidence that can be used to show that to take into account is how to draft claims to medical use claims granted by the EPO. the use is necessarily encompassed by the distinguish a new use from what has come As discussed above in the section on description in the reference and that this would before. Such claims need to include a limita- patentability, in member countries of the be recognized by someone that is skilled in tion that will enable the claim to overcome EPC, after a European patent has been that field5–7.For example, in a recent case the novelty and obviousness hurdles of granted, the EPO has no further role in deter- involving two of Eli Lilly & Company’s patents patentability. If the prior art does not contain mining issues of infringement and validity. for Prozac (fluoxetine hydrochloride), part of any reference to the use of a particular com- Instead, patent disputes are referred to the court’s analysis involved the conclusion pound for any therapeutic indication, then national courts, allowing room for different that previous claims regarding a method of it is probably sufficient to use the following interpretations of issues of patentability and treating anxiety with fluoxetine hydrochloride type of claim form: ‘a method of treating validity across Europe. For example, although the EPO decision in Eisai has generally been followed in the United Kingdom10,Sweden11 Box 2 | United States patent applications: form and content and Germany12, cases in the United Kingdom US utility applications typically include the following parts: over the past few years have qualified that •Title (maximum of 500 characters) second medical use claims are only valid •Background of the invention, usually including a brief description of the field of the invention where they reflect a novel indication, as and the related art opposed to the recognition of an improved dosage range or administration route13,14.So,a •Briefsummary of the invention claim for a dosing regime might be granted by •Brief description of any figures and/or drawings the EPO and enforced in some EPC member •Detailed description of the invention countries, but will be found invalid by courts •Claims identifying the boundaries of the invention in the United Kingdom. •Abstract (maximum of 150 words) Although the difference between a patent claim for a new method of use and a new dos- •Figures and/or drawings, if necessary to understand the subject matter of the invention ing regime might seem relatively minor, it is

most basic science is conducted, often do not Table 1 | Key differences in United States and European patent law have the resources that large pharmaceutical Issue United States Europe companies have to screen and evaluate large Priority rights ‘First to invent’: priority is given to ‘First to file’: priority is given to numbers of compounds. As a result, universi- the first person to conceive of the first applicant to file a patent ties will sometimes attempt to claim an inven- the invention application for the invention tion on the basis of functional descriptions that Public disclosure One-year grace period: an inventor Absolute novelty: an inventor is may not obtain a patent if the invention barred from obtaining a patent encompass large classes of compounds acting was publicly disclosed more than one if the invention is publicly in the same manner, thereby attempting to year before filing a patent application disclosed any time before filing create a patent position around basic science in the United States a patent application discoveries by way of broad method claims. Best mode Requirement for patentability: the No equivalent requirement: A classic example of this type of claim is illus- specification must set forth the disclosure of the best mode for ‘best mode’ for practising the invention practising the invention is not trated below by a case against the University of known to the inventor at the time of required Rochester regarding cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) filing the application inhibitors. Duty of candour Duty imposed: each person associated No formal duty imposed: Such claims are called ‘reach-through’ with the filing and prosecution of a applicants and their agents are claims, because it has been said that they patent application must disclose to the not required to disclose known attempt to reach through the drug develop- United States Patent and Trademark prior art that is material to Office (USPTO) all information known patentability. However, disclosing ment process and cover compounds that work to that person that is materially relevant relevant prior art may facilitate a according to the method that is described by to patentability. Breach of the duty to more thorough examination by the claim. Although claims that are drafted in disclose might result in invalidation the European Patent Office (EPO) of the patent functional terms might generally be patentable in the USPTO and the EPO, reach-through Claims to Patentable: methods of treatment are Not patentable: diagnostic, methods of patentable. For example, a claim surgical, and treatment methods claims are generally seen as overly broad.As dis- treatment directed to ‘a method for treating are not patentable. However, a cussed below, when it comes to inventions that disease X comprising administering claim directed to ‘use of arise where basic science meets utility, there is a compound Y’ is permissible compound X in the manufacture of a medicament for the fine line between seeking the broadest possible treatment of disease Y’ (a ‘second protection and seeking protection that is overly medical use’ claim) is permissible broad and will prove to be unenforceable.

Limits in the United States. In 2000, the actually an important concern for companies patent protection does not extend to laws of University of Rochester was granted a patent that are trying to build patent protection nature, physical phenomena, abstract ideas or with claims that covered a method for selec- around a new indication for a known com- the discovery of a product of nature. Because tively inhibiting the enzyme COX2 with any pound. For smaller companies that are many basic science discoveries fall into these non-steroidal compound without inhibiting attempting to attract venture funding or gain categories, patent protection is not available. the related enzyme COX1. A serious flaw of a foothold in the marketplace, it is important Although one might think that ‘products of other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to be able to develop a rounded patent port- nature’ restricts genetically modified micro- (NSAIDs) is that they suppress both enzymes folio that can provide both broad and narrow organisms, polypeptides and the like from and cause gastrointestinal irritation and levels of protection. The pursuit of claims to patentability, patentability might be possible if bleeding. Therefore, the recognition that advantageous dosage regimes and adminis- there has been some human involvement that selective inhibition was possible was an tration routes can help to achieve this. For alters the product of nature from its natural important advance that was expected to bring large pharmaceutical companies, the inability state15.For example, although a knockout the university large-scale returns. to pursue claims to dosage regimes limits the mouse or a nucleotide sequence encoding However, in February 2004, a United options for extending the proprietary life of a neuronal-binding polypeptide might be States Court of Appeals held that the patent key compounds. However, in Europe, some shown to have utility under the USPTO guide- was invalid for failure to comply with the medical use claims that refer to dosing regimes lines, the detailed description of the neuro- written description requirement16.In so cross the line into the area of unpatentable anatomical pathways that connect various doing, the court highlighted the issue of over- methods of treatment. European law-makers brain areas would not. In the first two cases, the breadth when it comes to functional claims. take the view that this area must be kept free ‘hand of man’ has intervened, either to alter From the Rochester court’s perspective, the from patent protection to allow European the genome of the mouse or to produce an problem was that the patent was only based doctors to carry out their duties without isolated nucleotide sequence. In the third on the recognition of the potential beneficial interference from patents. instance, the information, however useful for effects of a physiological property (selective later characterization of therapies and theo- inhibition of COX2 without inhibition of Reach-through claims ries on brain organization, is considered COX1) but did not disclose even a single One explanation that has been offered for why by the USPTO to fall into the category of the compound that could demonstrate the neuroscience is under-represented in patents discovery of a product of nature. claimed activity. Without a specific example is that legal requirements for patentability Once basic science research has progressed of a compound that possessed the claimed might prevent some findings from being cap- to the point when the information might be function, or even an adequate description of tured in patent applications, particularly cer- useful in the identification or treatment of how those of skill in that field would identify tain types of basic research. Under the utility a disease state, patent protection might be such a compound, the patent was no more requirement of US patent law, for example, available. Unfortunately, universities, where than a wish to obtain the stated effect.

This does not mean that all functional are filed, they are ultimately limited to just the 1. Kirschenbaum, S. R. Patenting basic research: myths and realities. Nature Neurosci. 5, 1025–1027 claims are invalid because of lack of written agonists that are referred to in the patent appli- (2002). description. On the contrary, as stated above, cation owing to the failure of the applicants to 2. Webber, P. M. Protecting your inventions: the patent system. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 823–830 researchers can walk the fine line of claim satisfy the aforementioned criteria. (2003). breadth without crossing over into the realm Regarding the second example, the EPO 3. Ergenzinger, E. R. Jr & Spruill, W. M. First, get the patent: quirks of biotech innovation and innovators of unenforceability. In fact, the Rochester has ruled that second medical use claims of this complicate securing of rights. Legal Times 28–29 court pointed out that a patent does not need format must refer to a “defined, real treatment (4 Nov 2002). 4. Ex parte Muller, 81 USPQ 261, (Patent Office, Board of to set out the exact chemical structure of a of a pathological condition”,and that the find- Appeals, 1947). compound. It merely needs to give enough ing that an agonist binds to a specific receptor 5. In re Robertson and Scripps, 169 F.3d 743, Case No. 98-1270 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 1999). detail for a skilled researcher to understand is merely a discovery, not an invention that is http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/ what is claimed and to show that the inventor eligible for patent protection17.Even if the dis- opinions/98opinions/98-1270.html 6. Atlas Powder Co. and Hanex Products Inc. v. Ireco Inc. invented what is claimed. So, the lesson seems ease can be functionally defined in the above and ICI Explosvis USA Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, Case No. to be that if functional claims are sought, manner, the applicant would have to show that 99-1041 (US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 1999). http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/sept99/ applicants need to link functional limitations a skilled person could assess whether or not a 99-1041.wp.html either with some structural characteristic by known disease (which is improved by the 7. Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Novopharm Limitited and Invamed, Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, which a skilled researcher can recognize a administration of agonist X to the patient) was Case Nos 98-1593 to 98-1595 (US Court of Appeals, common class of compounds, or specify in associated with receptor Z. Federal Circuit, 1999). http://www.law.emory.edu/ fedcircuit/july99/98-1593.wp.html sufficient detail how such a compound would Consequently, there are many hurdles to 8. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc. and Apotex Inc be identified. overcome regarding patentability of the above and B. C. Sherman and Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Interpharm Inc., 251 F. 3d 955, Case Nos 99-1262 claims in Europe. to 99-1264 and 99-1303 (US Court of Appeals, Reach-through claims in the EPO. The stan- Federal Circuit, 2001). http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/ Conclusion federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1262.html dard form of second medical use claim that is 9. EPO Decision G 5/83, EISAI/Second Medical Indication allowed by the EPO is ‘use of compound X in Issues that relate to the patenting of inventions OJEPO 64 (1985). 10. John Wyeth & Brothers Ltd’s Application and Schering the manufacture of a medicament for the in the field of neuroscience are as varied as the AG’s Application RPC 545 (1985). treatment of disease Y’.In most cases, both field itself. The identification of a new neuro- 11. Hydropyridine (Sweden) 19 IIC 815 (1988). 12. Hydropyridine (Germany) OJEPO 26 (1984) compound X and disease Y are specifically logical indication for a known compound is 13. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v Baker Norton defined; that is, the chemical formula of com- recognized as patentable by the USPTO and Pharmaceuticals Inc and Napro Biotherapeutics Inc., pound X is usually given, and the disease Y is EPO as long as the prior art allows, either Case No 98-1390/A3, 98-7637/A3 (England and Wales Court of Appeals Civil Division, Decision 169, identified by its medical name. explicitly or inherently, and provided that the 2000). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/ In recent years, the EPO has had to establish application is drafted with special rules in Civ,2000/169.html 14. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v Merck and Others policies with regard to how it treats claims such mind. Furthermore, when it comes to inven- (England and Wales Court of Appeals Civil Division, as:‘use of an agonist of receptor Z in the man- tions that arise where basic science meets util- Decision 5, 2003). http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/ EWHC/Patents/2003/5.html ufacture of a medicament for the treatment of ity, there is a fine line between seeking the 15. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 100 S.Ct.2204, disease Y’ and ‘use of agonist X in the manufac- broadest possible protection and seeking pro- Case No. 79-136 (1980). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/ ture of a medicament for the treatment of a tection that is overly broad and that will prove 447/303.html disease associated with receptor Z’.In the first unenforceable. So, although claims drafted in 16. University of Rochester v. G. D. Searle & Co., Case No. 03-1304 (US Court of Appeals, Federal example, the agonist is undefined, but the functional terms might generally be patentable Circuit, 2004). http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/ receptor and disease are defined. In the second in the USPTO and the EPO, patent applicants 03-1304.doc 17. EPO Decision T 241/95 Eli Lilly & Co./Serotonin receptor, example, agonist X is defined, but the disease is will not be successful unless they link func- OJEPO 103 (2001). only defined by reference to a receptor (agonist tional limitations either with some structural 18. Impact of Neuroscience – A Background Paper (US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-BP- X being an agonist of receptor Z). Although characteristic by which skilled researchers in BA–24, Washington DC, 1984) claims of such scope are desired by patent the field can recognize a common class of 19. Pennisi, E. Has neuroscience society growth been too fast for its own good? The Scientist 3, 1 (1989). applicants, there are several problems associ- compounds, or specify in sufficient detail how ated with obtaining the grant of such claims. such a compound would be identifiable. Competing interests statement The authors declare no competing financial interests. In the first example, problems include Ultimately, for all of these issues, the common whether or not the claim encompasses the use thread is that carefully crafted claim language of any previously known compounds that and patents are incredibly important when it Online links might inherently be agonists of the receptor in comes to overcoming obstacles to patentability DATABASES question. If this can be proved, the claim would and avoiding findings of invalidity for the types The following terms in this article are linked online to: US Patent Office database: lack novelty. As the scope of the claim is of inventions that are commonly encountered http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html unclear, objections of lack of clarity would be in neuroscience research. FURTHER INFORMATION raised by the EPO. Furthermore, the patent Countries for which international patent applications can application would have to contain details of Edward R. Ergenzinger Jr, Michelle L. be designated: how a skilled person would be able to test Cunningham and W. Murray Spruill are at Alston http://www.wipo.int/treaties/documents/english/pdf/m-pct.pdf & Bird LLP,3201 Beechleaf Court, Suite 600, European Patent Office website: whether a specific compound is indeed an ago- http://www.european-patent-office.org/ Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1062, USA. Patents in general | How to obtain a European Patent nist of the receptor in question. The applicant Philip M. Webber is at Frank B. Dehn & Co., US Patent and Trademark Office website: would also be expected to provide proof of the Patent and Trademark Attorneys, 179 Queen http://www.uspto.gov How to get a Patent association between the receptor and the dis- Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4EL. UK Patent Office website: http://www.patent.gov.uk ease and to show that a number of agonists Correspondence to E.R.E. What is a Patent? | How to apply for a Patent | International e-mail: [email protected] and national patent organizations have been found that act in the claimed man- Society for Neuroscience: http://web.sfn.org/ ner. In many cases where such patent claims doi: 1038/nrn1478 Access to this interactive links box is free online.